SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 5:24 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyGlobal cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the earth; more specifically, it is a theory positing an overall cooling of the Earth and perhaps the commencement of glaciation. This theory gained temporary popular attention due to press reporting following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a temporary downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s. The theory never had strong scientific support. that's an excerpt from wiki that's clearly written by a global warming fanatic/global cooling skeptic.Another view:QuoteGlobal warming or global cooling?Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet. Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed. A recent Washington Post article gave this scientist's quote from 1972. "We simply cannot afford to gamble. We cannot risk inaction. The scientists who disagree are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored." The warning was not about global warming (which was not happening): it was about global cooling! In the media, disaster is news, and its absence is not. This principle has been exploited so skillfully by ecological scare-mongers that it is now regarded as politically incorrect, even unscientific, to denounce global warming hysteria as unproven speculation. Meteorologists are a standing joke for getting predictions wrong even a few days ahead. The same jokers are being taken seriously when they use computer models to predict the weather 100 years hence. The models have not been tested for reliability over 100 years, or even 20 years. Different models yield variations in warming of 400%, which means they are statistically meaningless. Wassily Leontief, Nobel prize winner for modeling, said this about the limits of models. "We move from more or less plausible but really arbitrary assumptions, to elegantly demonstrated but irrelevant conclusions." Exactly. Assume continued warming and you get a warming disaster. Assume more episodes of global cooling, and you get a cooling disaster. In his latest best seller State of Fear, Michael Crichton does a devastating expose of the way ecological groups have tweaked data and facts to create mass hysteria. He points out that we know astonishingly little about the environment. All sides make exaggerated claims. Never in history have scientists accurately predicted what will happen 100 years later. It is impossible, even stupid, to predict the distant future. That scientific truth is rarely mentioned. Why? Because the global warming movement has now become a multi-billion dollar enterprise with thousands of jobs and millions in funding for NGOs and think-tanks, top jobs and prizes for scientists, and huge media coverage for predictions of disaster. The vested interests in the global warming theory are now as strong, rich and politically influential as the biggest multinationals. It is no co-incidence, says Crichton, that so many scientists sceptical of global warming are retired professors: they have no need to chase research grants and chairs. I have long been an agnostic on global warming: the evidence is ambiguous. But I almost became a convert when Greenpeace publicised photos showing the disastrously rapid retreat of the Upsala Glacier in Argentina. How disastrous, I thought, if this was the coming fate of all glaciers. Then last Christmas, I went on vacation to Lake Argentina. The Upsala glacier and six other glaciers descend from the South Andean icefield into the lake. I was astounded to discover that while the Upsala glacier had retreated rapidly, the other glaciers showed little movement, and one had advanced across the lake into the Magellan peninsula. If in the same area some glaciers advance and others retreat, the cause is clearly not global warming but local micro-conditions. Yet the Greenpeace photos gave the impression that glaciers in general were in rapid retreat. It was a con job, a dishonest effort to mislead. From the same icefield, another major glacier spilling into Chile has grown 60% in volume. Greenpeace and other ecological groups have well-intentioned people with high ideals. But as crusaders they want to win by any means, honest or not. I do not like being taken for a ride, by idealists or anyone else. We need impartial research, funded neither by MNCs, governmental groups or NGOs with private agendas. And the media needs to stop highlighting disaster scares and ignoring exposes of the scares.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 5:42 pm

global warming "science":
Last edited by ppauper on October 21st, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 5:54 pm

a better graphThe here-and-now is on the left, and the planet is clearly cooling
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 6:01 pm

as for global average temperatures, the concept is somewhat bizarre:what exactly does the figure represent:QuoteWhat are the basic raw data used? Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used. Coverage is denser over the more populated parts of the world, particularly, the United States, southern Canada, Europe and Japan. Coverage is sparsest over the interior of the South American and African continents and over the Antarctic. The number of available stations was small during the 1850s, but increases to over 3000 stations during the 1951-90 period. ah, so one problem is that the historical record in the 1850s was produced using far fewer stations than the current, and coverage is very sparse over large areas of the planet.Not exactly scientific ?QuoteFor marine regions sea surface temperature (SST) measurements taken on board merchant and some naval vessels are used. As the majority come from the voluntary observing fleet, coverage is reduced away from the main shipping lanes and is minimal over the Southern Oceans. There is an issue of consistency and homogeneity of the measurements through time and the steps that have made to ensure all non-climatic inhomogeneities have been removed. ah, so over water, the stations vary from year to year (observations from merchant and navy ships) and the data has been "doctored" for consistencyQuoteWhy are sea surface temperatures rather than air temperatures used over the oceans? Over the ocean areas the most plentiful and most consistent measurements of temperature have been taken of the sea surface. Marine air temperatures (MAT) are also taken and would, ideally, be preferable when combining with land temperatures, but they involve more complex problems with homogeneity than SSTs . so sea temperatures have a different methodology to those over landQuoteBecause many stations do not have complete records for the 1961-90 period several methods have been developed to estimate 1961-90 averages from neighbouring records or using other sources of data. Over the oceans, where observations are generally made from mobile platforms, it is impossible to assemble long series of actual temperatures for fixed points. ah, so much of the data is "guessed" to fill in gaps
 
User avatar
mencey
Posts: 638
Joined: August 12th, 2002, 11:02 am

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 6:45 pm

Maybe this graphic will open some eyes,Last reading 2004 was CO2 levels at 377 ppm. As the graphic says civilization begun 7 to 10k years ago Climate Change Aussie Gov page
Last edited by mencey on October 21st, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
mencey
Posts: 638
Joined: August 12th, 2002, 11:02 am

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 6:52 pm

Ten Myths about Climate Change
 
User avatar
mencey
Posts: 638
Joined: August 12th, 2002, 11:02 am

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 7:00 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppaupera better graphThe here-and-now is on the left, and the planet is clearly coolingFair enough, you can go hundreds of millions of year back if you want but what we are talking about is the potential end of a period called Holocene, we are concern of the climate for the last 10.000 years that is where civilisation developed and the stability of such "inter ice ages period"Quote from wiki: "The Holocene epoch is a geological period that extends from the present day back to about 10,000 radiocarbon years, approximately 11,430 ± 130 calendar years BP (between 9560 and 9300 BC). The Holocene is the fourth and last epoch of the Neogene period (second epoch of the unofficial Quaternary sub-era). Its name comes from the Greek words ὄλος ("holos") which means whole or entire and καινη ("kai-ne") which means new or recent. It has also been called the "Alluvium Epoch". It has been assigned to MIS 1, which is an interglacial. The next glacial is yet to occur.The Holocene starts late in the retreat of the Pleistocene glaciers.Human civilization dates entirely to the Holocene. The Blytt-Sernander classification of climatic periods defined, initially, by plant remains in peat mosses, is now of purely historical interest. The scheme was defined for north Europe, but the climate changes have been claimed to occur more widely. The periods of the scheme include a few of the final, pre-Holocene, oscillations of the last glacial period and then classify climates of more recent prehistory.The Holocene was preceded by the Younger Dryas cold period, the final part of the Pleistocene epoch. The end of the Younger Dryas has been dated to about 11600 calendar years BP (9600 BC). However, evidence for the Younger Dryas is not clear cut anywhere other than in the Northern Hemisphere."Ppauper, we are talking about the consequences of debilitation of the north atlantic current due to reduction thermohaline circulation (decrease of salinity in the water due to the melting of the Ice cap). This may cool down the northern hemisphere (and it has happend already at the end of the last Ice age). It may intensify hurricanes and produce more extrem events,...... hail, floods and draughts, etc...Can you expalin what accounts for the climate difference between northern Canada and northern Europe? So, ppauper, according to your theory of global cooling we should burn more fosil fuels, destroy the remaining forests, send more methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases,.... and save millions of dollar to the energy, steel, transport, cement and other industries. Is that what you are proposing?
Last edited by mencey on October 21st, 2006, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
mencey
Posts: 638
Joined: August 12th, 2002, 11:02 am

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 22nd, 2006, 7:17 pm

Is the climate warming?Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.Linear trends can vary greatly depending on the period over which they are computed. Temperature trends in the lower troposphere (between about 2,500 and 26,000 ft.) from 1979 to the present, the period for which Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit data exist, are small and may be unrepresentative of longer term trends and trends closer to the surface. Furthermore, there are small unresolved differences between radiosonde and satellite observations of tropospheric temperatures, though both data sources show slight warming trends. If one calculates trends beginning with the commencement of radiosonde data in the 1950s, there is a slight greater warming in the record due to increases in the 1970s. There are statistical and physical reasons (e.g., short record lengths, the transient differential effects of volcanic activity and El Niño, and boundary layer effects) for expecting differences between recent trends in surface and lower tropospheric temperatures, but the exact causes for the differences are still under investigation (see National Research Council report "Reconciling Observations of Global Temperature Change").An enhanced greenhouse effect is expected to cause cooling in higher parts of the atmosphere because the increased "blanketing" effect in the lower atmosphere holds in more heat, allowing less to reach the upper atmosphere. Cooling of the lower stratosphere (about 49,000-79,500ft.) since 1979 is shown by both satellite Microwave Sounding Unit and radiosonde data, but is larger in the radiosonde data.Relatively cool surface and tropospheric temperatures, and a relatively warmer lower stratosphere, were observed in 1992 and 1993, following the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The warming reappeared in 1994. A dramatic global warming, at least partly associated with the record El Niño, took place in 1998. This warming episode is reflected from the surface to the top of the troposphere.There has been a general, but not global, tendency toward reduced diurnal temperature range (DTR), (the difference between high and low daily temperatures) over about 50% of the global land mass since the middle of the 20th century. Cloud cover has increased in many of the areas with reduced diurnal temperature range. The overall positive trend for maximum daily temperature over the period of study (1950-93) is 0.1°C/decade, whereas the trend for daily minimum temperatures is 0.2°C/decade. This results in a negative trend in the DTR of -0.1°C/decade.Indirect indicators of warming such as borehole temperatures, snow cover, and glacier recession data, are in substantial agreement with the more direct indicators of recent warmth. Evidence such as changes in glacier length is useful since it not only provides qualitative support for existing meteorological data, but glaciers often exist in places too remote to support meteorological stations, the records of glacial advance and retreat often extend back further than weather station records, and glaciers are usually at much higher alititudes that weather stations allowing us more insight into temperature changes higher in the atmosphere.Large-scale measurements of sea-ice have only been possible since the satellite era, but through looking at a number of different satellite estimates, it has been determined that Arctic sea ice has decreased between 1973 and 1996 at a rate of -2.8 +/- 0.3%/decade. Although this seems to correspond to a general increase in temperature over the same period, there are lots of quasi-cyclic atmospheric dynamics (for example the Arctic Oscillation) which may also influence the extent and thickness of sea-ice in the Arctic. Sea-ice in the Antarctic has shown very little trend over the same period, or even a slight increase since 1979. Though extending the Antarctic sea-ice record back in time is more difficult due to the lack of direct observations in this part of the world.
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

October 30th, 2006, 10:30 pm

QuoteThe most significant government report in the last twenty years - Tony BlairThe Economics of Climate Change - Sir Nicholas Stern, Former Chief Economist, World Bank.A report commissioned by UK Chancellor Gordon Brown.QuoteThe most comprehensive review ever carried out on the economics of climate change was published today. The Review, which reports to the Prime Minister and Chancellor, was commissioned by the Chancellor in July last year. It has been carried out by Sir Nicholas Stern, Head of the Government Economic Service and former World Bank Chief Economist.Sir Nicholas said today:“The conclusion of the Review is essentially optimistic. There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we act now and act internationally. Governments, businesses and individuals all need to work together to respond to the challenge. Strong, deliberate policy choices by governments are essential to motivate change.But the task is urgent. Delaying action, even by a decade or two, will take us into dangerous territory. We must not let this window of opportunity close.”The first half of the Review focuses on the impacts and risks arising from uncontrolled climate change, and on the costs and opportunities associated with action to tackle it. A sound understanding of the economics of risk is critical here. The Review emphasises that economic models over timescales of centuries do not offer precise forecasts – but they are an important way to illustrate the scale of effects we might see. The Review finds that all countries will be affected by climate change, but it is the poorest countries that will suffer earliest and most. Unabated climate change risks raising average temperatures by over 5°C from pre-industrial levels. Such changes would transform the physical geography of our planet, as well as the human geography – how and where we live our lives. Adding up the costs of a narrow range of the effects, based on the assessment of the science carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001, the Review calculates that the dangers of unabated climate change would be equivalent to at least 5% of GDP each year.The Review goes on to consider more recent scientific evidence (for example, of the risks that greenhouse gases will be released naturally as the permafrost melts), the economic effects on human life and the environment, and approaches to modelling that ensure the impacts that affect poor people are weighted appropriately. Taking these together, the Review estimates that the dangers could be equivalent to 20% of GDP or more.In contrast, the costs of action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year. People would pay a little more for carbon-intensive goods, but our economies could continue to grow strongly.If we take no action to control emissions, each tonne of CO2 that we emit now is causing damage worth at least $85 – but these costs are not included when investors and consumers make decisions about how to spend their money. Emerging schemes that allow people to trade reductions in CO2 have demonstrated that there are many opportunities to cut emissions for less than $25 a tonne. In other words, reducing emissions will make us better off. According to one measure, the benefits over time of actions to shift the world onto a low-carbon path could be in the order of $2.5 trillion each year.The shift to a low-carbon economy will also bring huge opportunities. Markets for low-carbon technologies will be worth at least $500bn, and perhaps much more, by 2050 if the world acts on the scale required.Tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy; ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth.The Review looks at what this analysis means for the level of ambition of global action. It concludes that the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should be limited to somewhere within the range 450 - 550ppm CO2e (CO2 equivalent). Anything higher would substantially increase risks of very harmful impacts but would only reduce the expected costs of mitigation by comparatively little. Anything lower would impose very high adjustment costs in the near term and might not even be feasible, not least because of past delays in taking strong action.The second half of the Review examines the national and international policy challenges of moving to a low-carbon global economy.Climate change is the greatest market failure the world has seen. Three elements of policy are required for an effective response.The first is carbon pricing, through taxation, emissions trading or regulation, so that people are faced with the full social costs of their actions. The aim should be to build a common global carbon price across countries and sectors.The second is technology policy, to drive the development and deployment at scale of a range of low-carbon and high-efficiency products. And the third is action to remove barriers to energy efficiency, and to inform, educate and persuade individuals about what they can do to respond to climate change. Fostering a shared understanding of the nature of climate change, and its consequences, is critical in shaping behaviour, as well as in underpinning both national and international action.Effective action requires a global policy response, guided by a common international understanding of the long-term goals for climate policy and strong frameworks for co-operation. Key elements of future international frameworks should include:Emissions trading:Expanding and linking the growing number of emissions trading schemes around the world is a powerful way to promote cost-effective reductions in emissions and to bring forward action in developing countries.Strong targets in rich countries could drive flows amounting to tens of billions of dollars each year to support the transition to low-carbon development paths.Technology co-operation:Informal co-ordination as well as formal agreements can boost the effectiveness of investments in innovation around the world.Globally, support for energy research and development should at least double, and support for the deployment of low-carbon technologies should increase up to five-fold.International co-operation on product standards is a powerful way to boost energy efficiency.Action to reduce deforestation:The loss of natural forests around the world contributes more to global emissions each year than the transport sector. Curbing deforestation is a highly cost-effective way to reduce emissions; large-scale international pilot programmes to explore the best ways to do this should get underway very quickly.Adaptation:The poorest countries are most vulnerable to climate change. It is essential that climate change be fully integrated into development policy, and that rich countries honour their pledges to increase support through overseas development assistance. International funding should also support improved regional information on climate change impacts, and research into new crop varieties that will be more resilient to drought and flood.Notes for editorsPre-industrial levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were 280ppm CO2 equivalent (CO2e). The current concentration is 430ppm CO2e.The Review examined evidence from many different economic models of the impacts of climate change and of the costs and benefits of mitigation. One model, PAGE2002, was used to illustrate the results from considering new scientific evidence and a wider range of impacts. This model was chosen because it specifically allows for a rigorous statistical treatment of risk and uncertainty.The Stern Review can be downloaded at www.sternreview.org.uk. Background on the Review, including the terms of reference and responses to the Call for Evidence, can also be found here.Sir Nicholas Stern is Head of the Government Economic Service, and Adviser to the UK Government on the Economics of Climate Change and Development. He is a former Chief Economist of the World Bank.For media enquiries, please call 020 7270 6280, or email sterninvites@hm-treasury.gsi.gov.uk.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 15th, 2008, 1:33 pm

a top observatory that has been measuring sun spot activity predicts that global temperatures will drop by two degrees over the next 20 years as solar activity slows and the planet drastically cools down. They suggest this could potentially herald the onset of a new ice age. Following the end of the sun’s most active period in over 11,000 years, the last 10 years have displayed a clear cooling trend as temperatures post-1998 leveled out and are now decreasing.
 
User avatar
Collector
Posts: 4217
Joined: August 21st, 2001, 12:37 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 18th, 2008, 9:05 pm

Hadley Climate Center HadAT2 Data shows global cooling in the last year
 
User avatar
farmer
Posts: 13461
Joined: December 16th, 2002, 7:09 am

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 18th, 2008, 11:02 pm

Al Gore is like Eddie Mush. Even with a 50% chance, somehow he was still guaranteed to be wrong.There is no branch of science which can quantify and explain this phenomenon of Al Gore's inescapable wrongness. And yet, like gravity, it is an unquestioned truth, instinctively understood as law by any man on the street. They simply call him a "loser" without further explanation.
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 19th, 2008, 1:28 pm

New Zealand ski resorts see 'largest snow base ever'...
 
User avatar
ppauper
Topic Author
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 19th, 2008, 1:29 pm

Mexican scientist warns Earth will see 'Little Ice Age' for next 80 years!
 
User avatar
TraderJoe
Posts: 11048
Joined: February 1st, 2005, 11:21 pm

Impending Ice Age - What We Can Do (Mitigation)

August 25th, 2008, 3:05 am

QuoteGlobal warming time bomb trapped in Arctic soil: study Sun Aug 24, 1:15 PM ETPARIS (AFP) - Climate change could release unexpectedly huge stores of carbon dioxide from Arctic soils, which would in turn fuel a vicious circle of global warming, a new study warned Sunday. And according to one commentary on the research, current models of climate change have not taken this extra source of greenhouse gas into account.Scientists have long known that organic carbon trapped inside a blanket of frozen permafrost covering one fifth of the world's land mass would, if thawed, release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.But until now they simply did not have a good idea of how much carbon is actually locked inside this Arctic freezer.To find out, a team of American researchers led by Chien-Lu Ping of the University of Alaska Fairbanks examined a wide range of landscapes across North America.They took soil samples from 117 sites, each to a depth of at least one metre, in order to provide a full assessment of the region's so-called "carbon pool."Previous estimates of the Arctic carbon pool relied heavily on a relative handful of measurements conducted outside of the Arctic, and only to a depth of 40 centimetres (15.5 inches).The study, published in the British journal Nature Geoscience, found that the stock of organic carbon "is considerably higher than previously thought" -- 60 percent more than the previously estimated.This is roughly equivalent of one sixth of the entire carbon content in the atmosphere.And that is just for North America. The size and mix of landscapes in the northern reaches of Europe and Russia are about the same, and probably contain a comparable amount of carbon-dioxide producing matter currently held in check only by the cold, the study said.And the danger of a thaw is real, note climate scientists.The Nobel Prize-winning UN panel of climate change scientists project temperature increases by century's end of up to six degrees Celsius (10.8 degrees Fahrenheit) in the Arctic region, which is more sensitive to global warming than any other part of the planet.Commenting on the research, Christian Beer of the Max Planck Institute in Jena, Germany, pointed out that the climate change models upon which future projections are based, do not include the potential impact of the gases trapped frozen Arctic soils."Releasing even a portion of this carbon into the atmosphere, in the form of methane or carbon dioxide, would have an significant impact on Earth's climate," he noted in his commentary, also published in Nature Geoscience.Methane, another greenhouse gas, is less abundant than carbon dioxide but several times more potent as a driver of global warming.Don't say I never told you so.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On